Presented by Paul Smith, Tina Patton, and Johanna Kertesz, MPCA

DRAFT METROPOLITAN SOLID WASTE POLICY PLAN 2010-2030

Document is near public review ready

Aug 5 – SWMCB Regional Analysis Co

Aug/Sept – Public Review Sept/Oct - Public Meeting and

Comments Oct/Nov – Commissioner Adopts

DRAFT METROPOLITAN SOLID WASTE POLICY PLAN 2010-2030 Required by Minn. Stat. § 473.149 History – 1970; 1979; 1985; 1991; 1997; 2004 MPCA/Counties/SWMCB – guide decisions

(plans; budgets; regulatory actions; assistance) Business and Waste Industry – guide decisions;

investment Producers – guide decisions; actions Generators, Citizens – guide decisions;

behavior Legislature – guide decisions; legislative

initiatives

COMPONENTS OF 2004 PLAN Vision; Goals; Key Themes; How the plan will be used Goals and Policies Opportunities and challenges; Tools for implementation;

Metro statutory requirements Overview of Metro SW System Appendices:

Citizens Jury report SWAC report Other reports and references Pre-drafting notice Remaining capacity at MSW facilities Review criteria County Master Plan requirements Glossary

COMPONENTS OF THIS PLAN Background; Challenges; Accomplishments (pgs 2-5) Vision; Key Themes; Goals; Policies (pgs 6-9)* Metropolitan System Plan 2010-2030 (pgs 10-23)*

Forecasts; Abatement Objectives; Benefits; Strategies; System Costs

Implementation (pgs 24-27)* Metro Governance; MPCA Initiatives; Monitoring; MLAA

Appendices Overview: Current Metro Solid Waste System Pre-drafting Notice MPCA Integrated Stakeholder Process MPCA Review Criteria

Permits; Contracts; Waste Districts; Designation; Landfill CONs; County Certification Reports; County Plans

Glossary

KEY THEMES: Accountability“This plan places a great emphasis on

accountability. Many entities, public and private, have the responsibility for implementing this Plan, including state and local governments; private waste and recycling businesses; citizens; manufacturers of products; retailers and other businesses; and environmental groups. All must be held accountable. The WMA gives the state agencies and counties primary oversight for holding the parties accountable. However, the authorities granted to the state and counties may not be sufficient, and this issue will have to be monitored, and possible changes in authority sought.”

SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT OBJECTIVES Required by statute to set quantifiable

objectives Reduction/reuse, recycling, and

organics objectives are presented in ranges, with the lower end representing a “floor” or minimum

Resource recovery objectives were set to maximize existing capacity

Landfill objective is given as a “ceiling” or maximum

Management Method

Current System (2008)

2015 2020 2025 2030

Source Reduction & Reuse

1 – 2% 2 – 4% 3 – 5% 4 – 6%

Recycling 41% 45 – 48% 47 – 51% 48 – 54% 53 – 60%

Organics 2% 3 – 6% 4 – 7% 5 – 9% 7 – 9%

Resource Recovery

29% 32 – 34% 34 – 35% 32 – 33% 29 – 30%

Landfill 28% 20% 15% 15% 11%

TABLE 1: System Objectives

METRO MANDATORY PROCESSINGMINN. STAT. § 473.848

A person may not dispose of unprocessed MSW at a landfill, unless the waste has been certified as unprocessible by a county.

To be processed, the MSW must be reduced in weight by 65 percent.

The MPCA will use its regulatory authority with respect to landfills to enforce the law.

Counties need to work with the Agency regarding the data analysis in order for the enforcement to be effective.

SYSTEM COSTS Data provided by metro and non-

metro county solid waste staff and haulers

Costs per ton presented as ranges to reflect inherent variability

Costs actually reflect price or charges paid

Compared potential costs of maintaining status quo in 2015 vs. reaching the plan objectives in 2015

TABLE 4:Estimated Costs per TonManagement Method

Total Cost per Ton

Tip fee Collection and other costs

Recycling (residential)

$110 - $143 Not applicable Unable to separate these costs

Recycling (CII) $85 - $90 Not applicable Unable to separate these costs

Organics (Food to animals)

$0 - $49 Not applicable Unable to separate these costs

Organics (SSO) $80 - $193 $40 - $45 $40 - $148

Waste to Energy

$168 - $207 $49 - $84 $119 - $123

Landfill $130 - $162 $39 - $43 $91 - $119

TABLE 5: Potential Changes to Solid Waste Management

CostsManagement Method

Status Quo 2015 Cost ($ million)

Goal 2015 Cost ($ million)

Difference in Cost ($ million)

Recycling $140 - $160 $166 - $189 $26 - $29

Organics $0.7 - $6 $5 - $21 $4.3 - $15

Waste to Energy

$163 - $201 $214 - $263 $51 - $62

Landfill $150 - $187 $57 - $71 ($93 - $116)

Total $454 - $554 $442 - $544 ($10 - $12)

STRATEGIES TO REACH THE OBJECTIVES Table 3 in Plan provides potential

strategies and guide for implementation

Responsible parties and roles, need for new tools are identified

Flexibility is emphasized; not mandatory or exhaustive list

Regional solutions are preferred when more effective and efficient

MPCA’S ROLE In the Plan, the MPCA agrees to:

Enforce laws and rules for Metropolitan mandatory processing (M.S. §

473.848) Public Entities Law (M.S. § 115A.471) Certificate of Need law (M.S. §§ 115A.917 and

473.823) Permits and operating requirements Other statutes in WMA that MPCA must

enforce For financial assistance decisions, recommend

eligible projects in centroids

MPCA’S ROLE Prioritize solid waste rule-making Initiate and support policy initiatives that

implement the Plan (new tools and modify old) Provide research, support and technical

assistance Lead a process/take responsibility for improving

measurement and evaluation of progress Initiate discussions and develop joint Agency

policy, with the Dept of Commerce on waste-to-energy

Align internal workings of MPCA to support the Plan

DISCUSSION QUESTION

What do you like about the plan/what can you support?

DISCUSSION QUESTION

If you could change one thing about the plan, what would it be?

DISCUSSION QUESTION

One way this plan differs significantly from the 2004 plan is it’s inclusion of a System Plan that includes specific and quantifiable objectives as required in statute. Do you feel these objectives are

achievable? If you don’t think they are, how would

you change them?

DISCUSSION QUESTION

The plan emphasizes accountability and provides potential strategies/tools that can help hold all parties accountable for implementing the plan. Are there other tools that would help? Which can be achieved without

legislative changes? Which are best implemented regionally?